On 10/18/19 8:57 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>> Suggestion: `next;` instead?
>
> I am agnostic about which word is used, so I would open up for suggestions if
> others think there is a better word than `fallthrough`.
>
> As far as I care, it could be any of the following[1] as long as the
> functionality was the same (this is me being a little tongue-in-cheek here):
>
> - proceed
> - carry_on
> - persevere
> - keep_going
> - go_ahead
> - advance
> - go_forward
> - keep_on
> - furthermore
Or "pass", but very good candidate for consistency should be "continue". Of
course that
would be a big BC break.
Imo, this would make more sense if fallthrough did something more, e.g. allowing
case X:
if (something) {
fallthrough;
}
something-else;
break;
case Y: ....
Going this way we could imagine that `fallthrough N` could allow skipping N
following
`case`s and `fallthrough default` jumping to the default section. Then, don't
we need a
way to jump outside of the whole switch statement? Ah, there's `goto` already.
So, maybe
extend `goto` somehow?
I'm just throwing some ideas to consider, I don't pretend they are good. Adding
a no-op
keyword does not make much sense to me. It might be not useful enough to
justify a BC
break. You could call it "noop" as well.
--
Aleksander 'A.L.E.C' Machniak
Kolab Groupware Developer [http://kolab.org]
Roundcube Webmail Developer [http://roundcube.net]
----------------------------------------------------
PGP: 19359DC1 # Blog: https://kolabian.wordpress.com
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
